Security Archives | Elizabeth May

Elizabeth May pleased with C-51 committee report, but urges government to go further

Elizabeth May — Tue, 02 May 2017 17:50:37 +0000

Elizabeth May, released the following statement regarding today’s tabling of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security’s Report on Bill C-51:

“The Committee has done an excellent job in cataloguing the many, many flaws of the Harper administration’s now infamous Bill C-51. I am pleased that several of the ideas I presented in my brief to the Committee were included in the final recommendations, including:

reducing the scope of CSIS kinetic powers, especially the most egregious power to violate the Charter;
increasing the scope and resources of national security review bodies;
removing the egregiously overbroad terminology ‘terrorism in general’; and
enhancing the redress program for the no-fly list.

“However, it is also clear to me that the Government can and must go further to undo the damage of C-51. There are only two explicit repeals recommended in this report – s.12.1(3) of the CSIS Act and the two-court system for criminal cases under the Canada Evidence Act. My recommendation was to repeal entirely sections 1, 3, 4 and 5 while modifying section 2 of C-51. Without a full repeal and replace strategy, the government risks building their national security policy on a deeply flawed foundation. We are also left with a set of laws that risk violating the fundamental liberties of all Canadians. I urge the Government to take this report as a floor, not a ceiling, of what is possible in undoing the harms of C-51.”

The post Elizabeth May pleased with C-51 committee report, but urges government to go further appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Parliament: Question on C51, C22 and the Parliamentary Security Committee

Elizabeth May — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:29:49 +0000

Elizabeth May

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend and hon. colleague, who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. I certainly hope that his experience as parliamentary secretary for public safety will not be as frustrating as it was to be parliamentary secretary for democratic institutions. I highly doubt that the government plans to pull the plug on this legislation in the next 24 hours, so it is bound to be a bit more rewarding.

All levity aside, I support this bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It is absolutely the case that when Mr. Justice O’Connor and others testified in hearings on Bill C-51 in the 41st Parliament, the failure of Canadian governments over time to have parliamentary oversight of security operations and security entities was drawn to our attention numerous times. He quoted Craig Forcese, who is one of Canada’s leading experts, as is Kent Roach. They would prefer to see additional improvements to this bill, as would I, but I appreciate that important amendments were accepted at committee.

Would the parliamentary secretary be able to give us an update on what is being done to remedy the egregious multiple affronts to security and safety in Canada that came forward in Bill C-51? I opposed Bill C-51, not primarily because it offended Canadian civil liberties, although it does, but because it created silos in the views of people like Mr. Justice O’Connor, where CSIS would have information and have no obligation to share it with the RCMP and no obligation to share it with CSEC. Really, Bill C-51 makes us less safe, and the faster we can get rid of all of its various elements, potentially other than part 2, the better off we will all be.

Mark Holland – Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. colleague’s concerns. Before I address the concerns as they relate to Bill C-51, I will speak to the bill that is in front of us, Bill C-22. It is important to note that there would be a five-year mandatory review. While we are ahead of the Commonwealth and while we think, after the committee’s recommendations and the listening that we did across the country, that we have a very good bill, there is a mandatory review process to make sure we could look at how effective this committee is being and how we could improve it. We do not hold this out as perfection, but we do feel that this is the right place to start.

On the issue of changes and when we can expect them, the committee at this very moment is considering a report on the security and intelligence framework. We want to hear from that committee. It has done incredibly important work. It has heard from witnesses across the country. That committee report is going to be a very important input into the minister’s overall process on responding. We have very clear platform commitments on what we feel needs to be changed and improved to get right that simultaneous work that needs to be done to protect Canadians and also to ensure that their rights are also protected.

The committee report is coming out. I would expect action by the government very shortly thereafter, informed by that process.

The post Parliament: Question on C51, C22 and the Parliamentary Security Committee appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May Speech on Parliament Hill Security

Elizabeth May — Tue, 12 May 2015 18:39:21 +0000

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I also, with my friend from St. John’s East, do not intend to use the full 20 minutes.

We have been talking in this place this morning about parliamentary privilege and its roots in our Constitution. I just want to review some of them. I want to start by saying that I appreciate the Speaker’s ruling of a prima facie finding of a breach of parliamentary privilege in the delays that occurred and in the indiscriminatory way pedestrian travel and vehicular travel was stopped by the RCMP without regard to whether they were stopping members of Parliament, who have a specific privilege to access Parliament Hill, tourists, or anyone else.

We have already had some very good points made by other members. I will just touch on them briefly.

The House of Commons security officers and the Senate security officers know on sight who is a member of Parliament, who belongs here, and who might be a stranger of whom they should take some note or be concerned about. In an event such as October 22, and let us hope such an event never occurs again, I certainly would have a great deal more confidence in the House of Commons security folks and officers because they actually know which person in the room is a member of Parliament and which person is someone they have never seen before.

Every day, as I approach the House of Commons, and it is not every day I take a taxi, but when I do I encounter obviously lovely young people working in the RCMP who do not know if I am here to clean the floors in the building or wait on tables in the dining room or if I might in fact be a member of Parliament. I feel a lot more confident in the House of Commons security system, and I have a lot of misgivings about the decisions that were made in the rushed-through debate that took place here on February 6.

I also should note again that Bill C-59 would take that rushed debate, in an omnibus fashion, and put in charge of security in the House of Commons, for the first time in our entire history, an RCMP officer and not someone who, as my friend from St. John’s East quite properly pointed out, should in fact, and historically always did, report to the Speaker.

When we talk about these privileges, the privilege that exists in the House of Commons, it has its roots in the preamble of the Constitution Act of 1867, which calls for a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Parliamentary privilege was partially codified in 1689 in the U.K. Bill of Rights, in article 9, in the first act of William and Mary, which has constitutional force in Canada.

The freedom of speech that is referred to in that section was asserted at least as early as 1523, so when we stand in this place and say that parliamentary privilege means something and has a long-standing tradition, we do not mean the last couple of years or the last couple of decades. We mean since 1867. We are talking about historical, rooted parliamentary privilege that goes back to 1523.

Prior to our own confederation, and as to the specific grant from the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the common law principle already well established that privileges were not just incidental to a legislature. They were deemed to exist. In fact, parliamentary privilege today carries the same constitutional weight as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We have had some litigation and court actions that have further established and ferreted out the questions. If an event occurs in the House of Commons, it is not the same as saying that we as members of Parliament have some sort of diplomatic immunity, that if one were to assault another, there are no laws to cover this. We are not a law unto ourselves. We are in Parliament. That was established in the Vaid decision, which dealt with the human rights concern of a former employee of the Speaker about whether discrimination had taken place. Parliamentary privilege does not extend so far as to say that we cannot exert rights we have under other laws in this place.

I did find it interesting, in going through some research, this finding of one of the great constitutional law experts of this place, Joseph Maingot, who looked back to when parliamentary privilege was asserted in terms of our security. This example comes from 1866, when there was a physical altercation between an assistant librarian and a member of Parliament. I cannot imagine such a thing happening today, but in any case, the member of Parliament raised it in the House, and the Speaker’s remarks make it very clear what the role of the Speaker is in security in this place.

I will cite from the book, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, found at page 140, citing the journal of the province of Canada, from August 1, 1866 in which the Speaker said:

…it is a power incidental to the constitution of this House to preserve peace and order within the precincts and protect Members of it from insults and assault. This power is necessary not only to insure the freedom of action of Members, but that freedom of discussion which is one of their fundamental rights.

I would point out, once again, that it is not just votes, and I want to underscore this point. According to the most early finding of parliamentary privilege by a Canadian Speaker, it is very clear that freedom of discussion is one of our fundamental rights. Therefore, we should not be prevented, even by seconds, from taking up a spot in a speaking order. We all know as parliamentarians how easily one can find an opportunity for speaking when we come to this place to enter into debate, such as this morning.

We did not know when we showed up this morning from the government orders that the Speaker would have ready for us a finding on questions of privilege raised earlier by members of the NDP, but we adjust ourselves. We come here and as parliamentarians, we passionately embrace the principles of this place and respect the supremacy of Parliament at all times. However, one of our most fundamental privileges and rights as parliamentarians is freedom of discussion. If we are impeded in that, then our rights are infringed and democracy is violated.

I cited a finding from 1866. We know that in the past number of years, the privileges and elections committee of the Canadian House of Commons has always ruled that police forces coming onto the precinct on official business require the permission of the Speaker. Not to belabour the point, and I think everyone in this House knows, but the exclusive privilege of the House has been to regulate proceedings within its own walls, which is a fundamental principle that must be respected. However, we are making changes, clearly from the rushed debate and subsequent vote of early February to the now rushed omnibus Bill C-59 with changes to create security for the parliamentary precinct with a director who shall always be under law a member of the RCMP, who would therefore not be reporting to the Speaker. These are not arcane changes. These are not small matters if we are to think forward to another era.

I agree with my friends who have earlier pointed out that this is not a partisan matter. This is a question of Constitution. For example, another executive could be composed of a party that does not even exist at this point in our parliamentary discourse and no one should take offence. What if we had a prime minister someday who decided that it would be convenient to stop members of opposition parties from getting to the House for votes and was able to ask the RCMP to make it so? There is a fundamental principle of democracy that requires that the privilege of Parliament and the protection of our rights and privileges in this place is vested in the Speaker and never in a prime minister.

We are at the very moment going through a fundamental transition, which is a breach with all principles and all tradition going back more than 500 years, and we are doing it in a rushed fashion. This strikes me as wrong, prima facie.

We have an opportunity today to see that this issue comes to crystallization in a couple of events that could be dismissed as minor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and I urge all my colleagues in this place to find that the conflict of RCMP officers stopping members of Parliament from getting to Parliament Hill is not trivial. It is the crystallization of a very dangerous change, which we will not adequately discuss in omnibus bill fashion, but which the PROC could look at and could call witnesses on.

I urge members to vote to send this matter to PROC and to request, for instance, that we hear expert witnesses, including our former Sergeant-at-Arms, current ambassador to Ireland, Kevin Vickers. I would wish to hear his best advice.

I remember very clearly when we rushed through discussion on February 6, and when the opposition raised concerns that it was a mistake to consolidate security of the House of Commons and the parliamentary precinct overall into the RCMP’s hands, without disrespect to that agency, but on constitutional grounds. The response from many members of the Conservative Party was well surely we can all agree. The Auditor General said some years ago, that we need to have a consolidation and better integration of security on Parliament Hill. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. The question is, who gets to be in charge of that improved security?

Why not have the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate be in control, as they have always been, of a consolidated force where the Sergeant-at-Arms of this place is in charge not just of the physical building, but of the grounds? Why should we have a decision that overturns centuries of constitutional divisions that have a very real democratic purpose: where we meet with the privileges and protections of our rights, liberties and freedoms, that the protection of those rights and liberties and freedoms be vested in the Speaker and never in the executive branch. It is a fundamental question.

Now that we have the opportunity through what might be dismissed as minor incidents, I urge all members to find they give us the opportunity to have proper discussion, thorough review, to call the right witnesses and not allow Bill C-59 as an omnibus budget bill to blast through and create permanent changes, or at least changes until some future government can repeal them, and the dismantling of a system that has worked and served us very well.

I want to close my remarks by thanking the House of Commons security officers and the Senate security officers. These are the officers, particularly in the House of Commons on October 22, who risked their lives and did the most to protect us. Although as other members have noted we do not have reports from what happened on that day, we do know that the gunman was stopped at the door by an unarmed House security guard, Samearn Son. He wrestled with the gunman and stopped what could have been a much worse event by giving others the chance to prepare themselves.

I mean no disrespect to the RCMP, but officers did not notice someone running by them with a gun. When they saw a chauffeur being removed from a limousine and a hijacked vehicle moving up to Centre Block, it is hindsight to say why did they not put on their sirens, but we know there was no warning to our internal security force from our external security force. I want one more time before closing to say again how deeply all of us in this place are grateful to our former Sergeant-at-Arms and the entire security team in this place.

The post Elizabeth May Speech on Parliament Hill Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Green Party Marks International Day for Biodiversity

Craig Cantin — Wed, 22 May 2013 21:03:13 +0000

The Green Party today celebrates the UN International Day for Biodiversity (IDB), designed to promote and protect the diversity of our ecosystems, species, genes, even our landscape.

The IDB was first celebrated on December 29 when the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on Biodiversity in 1993. Canada played a leading role countering George Bush’s attempts to prevent it.

Just over ten years ago in 2002, the world’s leaders agreed to work on reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Sadly, they have not achieved their goal. In fact, the various factors that lead to such loss have, in too many cases, intensified.

The consequences of this global failure will impact on our water, food systems, health, environmental and physical security, including the severity of climate change, and even our planetary culture. As usual, the poor are and will continue to suffer the most as they try to eke out a living from an increasingly barren and hostile planet.

The Green Party calls on the Harper Conservatives to do much more to support, both financially and practically, the implementation of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This is not a “green” issue; it concerns the future of our earth.

The post Green Party Marks International Day for Biodiversity appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security

Craig Cantin — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:17:21 +0000

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, certainly when we lost the RCMP presence at the Victoria airport, the Victoria Airport Authority said it found the presence of the RCMP extremely important to the airport. It is hard to quantify the benefit of having officers present because, as the airport authority officials noted at the time in the Times Colonist, their mere presence at the airport may in fact have offset and prevented crimes from occurring.

With all respect to the hon. parliamentary secretary, I suggest to him that his three tiers are not enough. We have to have airport security as a priority and border security as a priority.

When the unions that represent border service agents say they think smugglers will get the upper hand, Canadians should be worried.

When the RCMP officers are pulled from our airports for austerity reasons, I think we should all be concerned. It is a small amount of prudence for a large amount of benefit.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP as the police of jurisdiction will continue a police presence at the Kelowna and Victoria airports with routine patrols and in response to 911 emergency calls for service. I assure the member that the RCMP is well equipped, well trained and well positioned to continue to carry out this essential function. We will support our national police force in so doing.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security

Craig Cantin — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:14:03 +0000

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I first asked on February 15, which is in relation to the loss of RCMP services at a number of class 2 airports in British Columbia and elsewhere. The response I got from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety at the time was that the deployment of RCMP assets was an operational decision of the RCMP and not related to a decision of this particular administration.
[Ul25vHMC_gE]
It is a loss for the airport in Victoria, which is actually in Sidney, B.C. in my riding. The presence of these RCMP officers was enormously helpful. With dedicated RCMP officers at the Victoria airport, there was coverage seven days a week. Now if there are problems at the airport, the local RCMP detachment based in Sidney would have to juggle other calls and demands in order to come to the airport. It is a busy airport and the RCMP presence was very important for security.

As well, the RCMP presence was withdrawn from Kelowna. Although Kelowna is in quite a spectacularly beautiful part of Canada, in the Okanagan, it happens to be, according to security experts with whom I have consulted, something of a thoroughfare for the smuggling of drugs and weapons. It is in an area where there are significant markets in northern Alberta and, without the RCMP detachment at the Kelowna airport, there is a concern that there will be an increase in drug dealing and other offences.

This comes at the same time as significant cutbacks in border security agents. According to the union representing the border guards, the Canada Border Services Agency has had cuts of up to 1,000 people. A lot of us saw the news coverage of the loss of the canine division, which was very efficient, effective and accurate at detecting the presence of illicit drugs and narcotics and so forth at borders. We have lost the canine division, we have lost the workforce of Canada Border Services agents who worked with that canine force, and we are losing security along the Canada–U.S. border at the same time that these cutbacks at the RCMP have lost us protection in our airports.

I have to say that I find this rather baffling, coming from an administration that has fashioned itself as being tough on crime and as being one that wants to protect Canada and Canadians from the threats of violent crime and the threats of illegal and illicit activity. This is in fact not just affecting particularly the Canada Border Services agents, not just affecting so-called backroom arrangements, agents and operations, but actually will affect the front-line operations of border security agents in such a way that the president of the union feels that smugglers will get the upper hand.

It really would be appropriate for the federal government to revisit these ill-advised cuts and to restore and replace the presence of RCMP officers in the class 2 airports, such as in Victoria and in Kelowna, and at the same time to revisit the cutting of border security agents. These are ill-conceived cuts that will cause far more damage through the loss of security than they can possibly gain in austerity.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for providing me with the opportunity to respond to some of her concerns. Like other police services across Canada, the RCMP in British Columbia provides on-site policing at airports. Airport security in Canada is designated into three tiers across the country.

Tier 1 includes larger airports with policing detachments such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and similar other larger centres. The policing detachment in each tier 1 airport is provided by the police of the jurisdiction in that municipality where the airport is located.

Tier 2 airports are located in medium-sized municipalities that include cities like Kelowna or Victoria.

Tier 3 airports are located in small communities across Canada and do not have dedicated police presence as part of their security measures.

Security assessment of all airports is a continuous effort of Transport Canada.

The funding for airport security measures is paid directly by Transport Canada to the airport authorities and the municipality.

The RCMP provision of policing services under contract is conducted through co-operation with the municipality and the chief operating officer in each airport.

Total security operations for each airport include various measures, for example, perimeter fencing, employee security passes and controlled access zones. Budget allocations by Transport Canada are based on the assessment to determine the risks and need for security at each airport.

In 2012, Transport Canada estimated that existing security measures as a whole at tier 2 airports, including Kelowna and Victoria, other than dedicated police officers and detachments, were sufficient to ensure public safety at these airports.

We have confidence in Transport Canada’s assessment that the overall security package at Canadian airports, including Kelowna and Victoria, provide maximum security and safety measures for all Canadians. Let me assure the House that the policing presence at Kelowna and Victoria airports is ongoing through routine patrols and by responding to all emergency 911 calls for service.

With that being said, I thank the member for her query and I now anticipate her follow-up.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

May Asks Prime Minister Why Airport Security Being Abandoned

Craig Cantin — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:35:44 +0000

Today, in Question Period, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands, asked the Prime Minister to explain the rationale for discontinuing the RCMP and other police presence in four of Canada’s medium-sized airports.

Since 2006, Transport Canada has provided funding under the Airport Policing Contribution Program to the Victoria, Kelowna, Hamilton, and London airports. The Program was established four years earlier under the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), but transferred to Transport Canada in 2007. It was designed to assist certain airports in financing the rising cost of policing in order to increase public confidence in the aviation system and provide a “consistent police response.”

This valuable federal contribution to the safety and security of Canadian workers and travellers will end on March 31.

“When I was travelling through Kelowna recently, staff at the airport were concerned about the imminent removal of RCMP officers assigned to the airport,” Ms. May stated. “Despite the fact the airport is relatively small, there are concerns that it serves as a conduit for drugs headed into northern Alberta.

Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC) replied to Ms. May’s question.

“I am concerned that the decision to remove the RCMP and other police presence at the airports, including the Victoria airport in my own riding, was taken without full consultation with local officials and local communities,” Ms. May said. “I am afraid Ms. Bergen’s response does nothing to alleviate my concerns.”

The post May Asks Prime Minister Why Airport Security Being Abandoned appeared first on Elizabeth May.